View Poll Results: Should the law be changed so that gays can serve openly in the military.

Voters
217. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, do it now

    79 36.41%
  • Yes, but after the Pentagon completes it study on the issue

    11 5.07%
  • No, do not change the law

    14 6.45%
  • No, DADT should be repealed and gays not allowed to serve at all

    104 47.93%
  • Other, please explain

    9 4.15%
Page 21 of 49 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 484

Thread: Gays in the Military

  1. #201
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Gays in the Military

    I voted yes because of course gays should be able to serve, thats not even up for debate IMO cant thing of one good reason to stop or not allow them
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  2. #202
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    See, this is why I'd rather wait until the Pentagon finishes their studies on the subject. We need to KNOW if this is going to cause readiness problems of some kind before we go messing with the organization that protects the nation.

    If the Joint Chiefs figure they can handle it, and the troops don't have a problem with it, fine. I'm just saying let's be sure we aren't opening a big can of "OH CHIT I didn't know THAT would happen!" before we do this.
    Can of worms scenario:

    Openly serving gays/lesbians feel comfortable in 'coming on' to straights - ensuing a new line of harassment policies.

    Nothing that guys and gals don't already deal with, now, from the opposite gender.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #203
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Very relevent to the subject at hand.
    Thinking is always relevent. Maybe we've come to the base of your problems in these threads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    o70% on average and even 60% among conservatives say gays should be able to openly serve. This includes many veterans and active service personal.

    I don't think a few homophobes who cannot act professionally will be much of a problem.
    Your percentage is not reflective of the Active Forces and using "homophobe" is sophopmoric. And it is within the Active Duty where this matters. But in the end, the percentage for or against has nothing to do with it. The question is how to impliment, because it is going to happen. The problems between whites and blacks during that phase of social change were large, especially within the Army. There was no sense of implimentiation and it was a mess. There was plenty of racial violence. The gay challenge will have it's share of discipline issues as well. Pretending otherwise is just stupid. And this is what the military is trying to prepare for. It is not as simple as flipping a switch so the fat nasties of America can feel good about fairness while those they shouted for get beaten up and people like me have to deal with unit cohesion problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Before 9/11 on average 600 military persons were discharged under DADT. That flies in the face of your comment and stereo typing of gays.
    First, I didn't sterotype anything. And second your comment has nothing to do with what I stated. DADT was a Democrats mistake. Gays were relatively left alone until the issue was forced under the Clinton administration. This is why court martials grew. But back to my comment and before you avoided again, the anti-gay crowd have a hollywood stereotype in their heads that the pink parade is going to be on display. I am stating that flamboyant gays are not the types that have ever been attracted to serving in the military, so that won't be the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post

    There is nothing to implement. Gays are already serving. We can expect nothing really to change as gays are already serving, many of them openly.

    People may react badly. And they will be delt with under the UCMJ like everyone else.
    There is plenty to impliment. Gays are not serving openly and this is a big difference. The military, especially the Marine Corps, has an alpha male mentality. Holding hands with a man and kissing him does not fit with the culture. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has stated that he will not force heterosexual Marines to have to live with homosexual Marines if they don't want to. He has discovered this from his visits to bases. Army studies are showing similar issues. This is bigger than a National Guardsman's gay pride parade. And you "no implimentation" plan smacks of something Rumsfeld would put together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post

    Don't give me that "us" crap. I am part of that "us" like many other veterans and service members serving now.
    Well, you're not part of "us." Whatever your service involved, you're out. You have nothing at stake and no future entaglements with this. Not to take away from your gallant service, but aren't you just a National Guardsmen anyway? Besides "two weeks a year" did you ever have to live in a barracks with other guys in close proximity for years and years? "Us" means something different to the Active Forces than it would for a National Guardsman who wants to belong, but not for more than two weeks a year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Fact: It is hapening sooner rather than later. The majority of the country supports it and so do most of the military.

    The homophobia and bigotry like everything else will have to now be kept in the closet.
    It will happen when it happens. And most of the "military" does not support it, which is why implimentation is such a big part of the study. Perhaps you are using Air Force and Army National Guardsmen (both more civilian than military) numbers to mask the Marine numbers to skew your "most the military."

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Welcome to their world.
    Who's world? Personally, I don't care whether they serve or not. Notice I didn't vote either way. I think the lot of you who get so worked up over this is ridiculous. Your whining about homophobes and their whining about the Hollywood "just jacks" make you all mere mouth pieces. "I" am the one that has the struggle ahead. Think about that the next time you want to be a part of "us."
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-29-10 at 04:35 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #204
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,758

    Re: Gays in the Military

    No way am I reading this whole thread...Too lazy.

    But, I vote "Yes, do it now".

    With a few caveats.

    Firstly, "do it now" does not mean instantly, as that is likely not possible.
    The policy making bureaucracy will take a while.
    Then implementation, and the needed adjustments for things not thought of during the policy making part.

    Secondly, some other rules involved conflict with removal of DADT.
    For example, males and females are not allowed to bunk in the same area because (I assume) it is expected that such would cause issues.
    Issues that arise from sexual/physical attraction.
    So unless they repeal those rules, or provide private bunks for EVERYONE, it seems some conflict will arise from repealing only DADT.

    I note that I am in no way a military law scholar, so I donít know if my reasoning has fact behind it.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #205
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Firstly, "do it now" does not mean instantly, as that is likely not possible.
    The policy making bureaucracy will take a while.
    Then implementation, and the needed adjustments for things not thought of during the policy making part.
    This is exactly so. Some can't fathom that implimentation is an issue. The fact that gays are serving and the fact that gays will serve "openly" seems to make no difference to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Secondly, some other rules involved conflict with removal of DADT.
    For example, males and females are not allowed to bunk in the same area because (I assume) it is expected that such would cause issues.
    Issues that arise from sexual/physical attraction.
    So unless they repeal those rules, or provide private bunks for EVERYONE, it seems some conflict will arise from repealing only DADT.
    This is the heart of the issue within the Marine Corps. I have read where the other branches have similar concerns. These concerns have become a matter of the ongoing study because the leadership has been interviewing their respective "troops" from base to base for over a year and the themes don't change. Living conditions is a concern. It stands to reason that if heterosexuals are too uncomfortable to room with a homosexual, than that homosexual will be uncomfortable rooming with a heterosexual. If the homosexual is not outed, then there will be no problem (what we have today). If he is outed, then this is where the frictions will arise. The attitude that non-Active Duty types have that they can "suck it up" is impractical given that these room mates make up half of a fire team. This does have an effect on unit cohesion. But what we can't have are fire teams made up of all heteros and all homos. Fire teams make up Squads. There has to be a blend of acceptance.

    This will take time, education, and leadership. In other words..."IMPLIMENTATION."

    By the way, DADT was a huge mistake and it caused more problems for gays and the military than there ever was. What used to be generally ignored became a source for easy outs. The minute they told, they had to be processed. Ignoring them was no longer a "legal" option.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post

    I note that I am in no way a military law scholar, so I don’t know if my reasoning has fact behind it.
    No you got it. It's more common sense than military law.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-29-10 at 05:09 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gays in the Military

    MSgt, did you leave the dust cover open in your sig?

  7. #207
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    MSgt, did you leave the dust cover open in your sig?

    Good call. I had to take a second to realize what you are saying. Whoever took the picture was nasty.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #208
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Good call. I had to take a second to realize what you are saying. Whoever took the picture was nasty.
    What if it was in operation?
    To be sure you don't think it is practical to close the dust cover after every round is fired, do you?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  9. #209
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,552

    Re: Gays in the Military

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Thinking is always relevent. Maybe we've come to the base of your problems in these threads?
    You implied I had not thought about this subject as well as others. You are wrong and it is irrelevant, period.

    Your original statement was little more than an attempt at some form of insult.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Your percentage is not reflective of the Active Forces and using "homophobe" is sophopmoric.
    Our military is a reflection of our society. If over 52% of conservative, 60% of Republicans and 85% of moderates think it's OK. Odds are the military will have similar numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    And it is within the Active Duty where this matters. But in the end, the percentage for or against has nothing to do with it. The question is how to impliment, because it is going to happen. The problems between whites and blacks during that phase of social change were large, especially within the Army. There was no sense of implimentiation and it was a mess. There was plenty of racial violence. The gay challenge will have it's share of discipline issues as well.
    The gay problem will not even be close to what happened with blacks being integrated. Of course this is speculation on both our parts as neither of us can tell the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Pretending otherwise is just stupid. And this is what the military is trying to prepare for. It is not as simple as flipping a switch so the fat nasties of America can feel good about fairness while those they shouted for get beaten up and people like me have to deal with unit cohesion problems.
    No one is pretending it will be easy or any such nonsense. Please point out where anyone has said it will be easy? We are saying it needs to be done. And it will at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    First, I didn't sterotype anything. And second your comment has nothing to do with what I stated
    Here is your statement...

    It will take time to assimilate the new mind set. In the mean time, what the mouth pieces on both sides (yours and theirs) have to come to realize is that the kind of gays that are willing to wear a uniform in the military, especially the Marine Corps and Army, are not the kinds to go on parade or wear pink nail polish. The anti-gay crowd have this Hollywood stereotype in their heads and the pro-gay crowd are just preaching without care.

    Yes I was dead on and this is stereo typing even as you accuse "Hollywood" of stereo typing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    . DADT was a Democrats mistake. Gays were relatively left alone until the issue was forced under the Clinton administration. This is why court martials grew. But back to my comment and before you avoided again, the anti-gay crowd have a hollywood stereotype in their heads that the pink parade is going to be on display. I am stating that flamboyant gays are not the types that have ever been attracted to serving in the military, so that won't be the problem.
    Wrong...

    Prior to the 1993 compromise, the number of individuals discharged for homosexuality was
    generally declining. Since that time, the number of discharges for same-sex conduct has generally
    increased until 2001. However, analysis of these data shows no statistically significant difference
    in discharge rates for these two periods.
    - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40782.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    There is plenty to impliment. Gays are not serving openly and this is a big difference. The military, especially the Marine Corps, has an alpha male mentality. Holding hands with a man and kissing him does not fit with the culture. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has stated that he will not force heterosexual Marines to have to live with homosexual Marines if they don't want to. He has discovered this from his visits to bases. Army studies are showing similar issues. This is bigger than a National Guardsman's gay pride parade. And you "no implimentation" plan smacks of something Rumsfeld would put together.
    No stereo typing here.

    The military can adapt just like it has in every other case. The problem now days is not as big as this "Alpha Male" crap.

    You mite want to post some evidence of that as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well, you're not part of "us." Whatever your service involved, you're out. You have nothing at stake and no future entaglements with this. Not to take away from your gallant service, but aren't you just a National Guardsmen anyway? Besides "two weeks a year" did you ever have to live in a barracks with other guys in close proximity for years and years? "Us" means something different to the Active Forces than it would for a National Guardsman who wants to belong, but not for more than two weeks a year.
    I was in the RA for 8 years as a 19e (M48/M60) Armor crewman.

    I spent 4 more in the National Guard.

    I was at Fort Knox, Fort Carson and Germany. Trained Marines at Fort Knox.

    Vested interest damn Skippy I do. I served and I am a citizen of this country. So yes my opinion and that of other veterans certainly do count.

    You mite want to stick to facts and not ASSumptions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    And most of the "military" does not support it, which is why implimentation is such a big part of the study. Perhaps you are using Air Force and Army National Guardsmen (both more civilian than military) numbers to mask the Marine numbers to skew your "most the military."
    Your anicdotal evidence counts for nothing. I have posted the actual surveys and they are a better indicator than your "buddies" who beg to differ.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    who's world? Personally, I don't care whether they serve or not. Notice I didn't vote either way. I think the lot of you who get so worked up over this is ridiculous. Your whining about homophobes and their whining about the Hollywood "just jacks" make you all mere mouth pieces. "I" am the one that has the struggle ahead. Think about that the next time you want to be a part of "us."

    Last edited by Black Dog; 05-29-10 at 07:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #210
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: Gays in the Military

    has the 'fact' that George Washington's chief Military planner was a Fag, per Glenn Beck, been brought up yet?
    has the fact that the american military was NOT segregated until Woodrow Wilson, a raging racist did such?

    these are just some things I have heard that have not been discredited by the dems who love oppressing minorities to gain political power

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

Page 21 of 49 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •